What role is the US government playing in Iraq?

Question

What role is this government playing in the Iraq war? Isn't it funny how our government is so busy with the war that it is not paying attention to the cost of the war, the death numbers, the dead soldiers?

Answer 1

The US government doesn't know what to do in Iraq. The President is trying to hunker down until 2009 and dump the whole mess on whoever succeeds him. His cronies are raping the US taxpayer and cheating the troops with their war profiteering. The newly elected Congress is too chicken to admit that the war is pretty much lost. Most of the American public is sick of the war. And the troops are stuck in the middle of a millenia old civil war over what branch of Islam each Iraqi should be forced to follow.

Answer 2

i could not have stated it extra effective than did N. Cognito. Israeli hegemony contained in the middle East is the proper reason that the US is dropping its military and substances contained in the conflict adverse to Iraq. Bush is a stooge and a "sensible fool" for Jewish warmongers who like to work out individuals die for Israel. what percentage American Jewish squaddies have died in Iraq? BTW, the US has no purpose of leaving Iraq. the US is construction the biggest embassy contained in the international in Bagdad, and construction numerous everlasting bases for the time of Iraq. the continued civil conflict is by technique of layout of Israel and the US. that's area of a divide and conquer strategem. even with Democratic rhetoric calling for US withdrawl, both activities obviously do not ignore that we are able to be in Iraq till Israel releases us. in the present day Bush's handlers are doing their maximum acceptable to contain the US in conflict adverse to Iran. that's unhappy that this variety of tremendous number of American squaddies are demise for Israel. an truly valid reason for the US might want to be to apply our military to fix Palestine to the Palestinians. N. Cognito - I too am a military veteran with 20 years service.

Answer 3

I'm with you. I think Bush was totally dumb-founded when
our soldiers started comming back wounded, in need of
medical treatment or in coffins.
I honestly think Bush never thought about the cost of injury,
death or the impact these things would have on the
soldiers immediate family.
I don't think he realizes it, even now.

Answer 4

Would you rather stop the problem in Iraq or on youre home ground because that sort of problem spreads

Answer 5

Destabilization.

Answer 6

It's all about the winning of THIS secret "prize"!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 7

having failed to find WMDS. STUPID Bush says democracy is the next step.

Answer 8

U MAKE NO SENSE. TRULY. WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?

WHOS NOT PAYING ATTENTION

U SEEM UNEDUCATED.

Answer 9

lol this question is a cause for disaster.. no worries ill put an end to it, i promise.

the democrats are going to be like RAWR our entire american army is over there fighting with only 2 weeks rest every 5 years. a third of our army dies every day.. even though we've been there for more then 3 days.. but rawr ima democrat and i make logical sense and have proof to support what i jibber-jabber about.

how about the dude up top.. rawr george bush, rawr... he doesnt know what to do in iraq even tho he's the only one with a real and developed plan (no democratic candidate has announced their own plan for iraq and dodge it when asked, or give generalizations .. btw, lil factoid..)... dem's try to use the presidents new plan as a win for them by saying how they made the president create a new plan (though they dont like what he said.. OFCOURSE.. they feel like they have power or something, which they dont) when that is no way true, Bush is a strong president who doesnt just give into the democrats in congress and elsewhere, he rather ignores them like they deserve to be and speaks for the minority of intelligent republicans in the country. if Bush was waiting till 2008 to dump the problem on the dem's.. he wouldnt be making so many demands the dem's wont let him do... thats almost as dumb as saying he should be impeached.. FOR WHAT?! .. the dem's are just greedy and wont stop at anything to get the presidential seat. They use facts on the war to trick the american people...

theres one thing i missed in the following segment that ill mention...

of our million or so man army, our country has sent 250,000 soldiers over the course of the last FOUR years.
of those 250,000 soldiers, less then 3,000 US soldiers have died since the war on iraq started, many years ago.

im not demeaning the soldiers ONCE SO EVER. .
i think the democrats are doing things which in turn is outnumbering/outsmarting our soldiers in Iraq, therefore killing more and more US and NATO soldiers. I feel as a republican, supporting Bush in his asking of more soldiers in Iraq, that i am one of a rare breed, loyal and thankful to our soldiers. Not just as a show or trying to trick myself into thinking i am loyal to those overseas because i think its right, when im really doing things which, in return, result in more deaths like the democrats tend to do, but rather a real, loyal republican.

All i'm saying are the real numbers, take them how you want.

As for the cost of the war... nothing is free...nothing is "cheap"... and war is not on sale, nor clearance... so the idea that war is cheap is just as dumb as anything else the democrats have said over the years.. If we need the money, we'll get it.. we ALWAYS get it.. through allies, through treaties, through overseas bank loans (such as those between Germany and America to help pay for German reperations)... just after we founded new england, we fought a war against England, and won! ... how do you think we funded a war against the largest naval force in the world.. especially just after we colonized a few states along the Eastern border of America? we find ways, we always find ways... money is not an issue in war. In the end, there has never been a war the US has participated in, which led to a decrease in America's economy..

An article i wrote answering a similar question in which a yahoo member complained of our military being 'stretched-thin' -

Ill give you an informative cut-out of a past answer i made to a fellow answerer who said our military was 'stretched-thin'.

"
This country had a large enough army to control an entire southern/western border of Germany and fight an entire nother war against every single, and i mean, every single as in over 200 million people... in Japan. And still win. We destroyed an entire Japanese population who fought us with anything they had. Run out of bullets in a plane? Just ram into the enemy plane. Kamikaze plane fighters, easier then buying bombs to kill ships. Whenever the americans tried to take over a town in Japan, you know what would happen... people would rather run out of their houses and attack soldiers with sticks then get taken over. Didnt have a stick? People would jump off local cliffs to their death before getting taken over by american soldiers. Think im bsing you? Do some research and theres actually sickening video clips of people doing this.. We took over a Japan that people thought was indestructable and impenetrable... Parents would kill their kids before showing disloyalty to the japanese dictator. They were Radical, Extremeists, and Loyalists...yet we took over every japanese island stronghold they set up... with only half of our army..and that was during ww2.. it has only gone uphill..

Get you're facts straight.. our military doesnt have 200,000 people in it...

Most soldiers go to iraq for 6 months max which is an avg. amount of time for a soldier to spend on enemy soil in any war... most never see combat.

The only ones that spend 2+ years are high ranking, overly loyal americans that wouldnt be there if they didnt love america with a passion and believed in our mission.
Privates who spend 2+ years in iraq are the only ones the media looks at.. and generally.. those privates are part of squads who have been randomly chosen to hold certain parts of iraq, in which, if they leave, a transaction of soldiers could be very dangerous..

Media focuses on germany and frances, and other generally loyal to americans refusal to 'support' us militarily... thats because if france went for example, then NATO would stay out of it and more French would be put on the battlefield, when the French would rather stay out of it and rather allow NATO to send troops, which will result in a more diverse group of soldiers being sent, thus less french, with the same number of overall troops. Its not that they dont support us.. its just they would rather less of their troops be sent and more of other countries soldiers being sent. Less casualties for them.

Most soldiers in afghanistan and some soldiers in Iraq are NATO soldiers, not american. Also Britain has supported us 100% in this war and decided to send there own troops because they want to be named as a hero to the war on terrorism also.

Our military is not 'stretched thin'....

We have only sent 250,000 troops of our million++ person army to Iraq since 2003.

Other countries who have sent soldiers to iraq to help us (still in Iraq presently)::

The UK
South Korea
Poland
Australia
Romania
Denmark
Georgia
El Salvador
Czech Republic
Azerbaijan
Latvia
Mongolia
Albania
Slovakia
Lithuania
Armenia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan
Moldova

Joined the ground operations in Iraq in 2006:
Hungary
Bulgaria
Fiji

"

Who told you we dont have enough troops?
If we dont have enough troops, its for 1 reason. Congress wont fund allowing more troops into Iraq. We have them, Congress wont give us the freedom to use them. Rather they make a useless obstical course that we need to go through in order to get what our military needs.

Cha-a-a-ng ... hope that helps

Answer 10

we are waisting time and money